‘Arbitrary’ dance of Tibetan democracy

The preliminary elections of the Sikyong (Tibetan Political leader) and members of the
16th Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile recently took place across the globe. I felt very excited
to make use of my rights as a Tibetan Green Book holder for the first time. I was ready to
finally embrace our democracy, but what awaited me was truly shocking and slightly
disappointing. Heavy imputations, vague rules and regulations and arbitrary changes
brought a lot of confusion and debate among the Tibetan community in exile.
Open letter to the Sikyong, Kashag and Election Commissioner

Before the elections even started, an open letter dated Oct 13, in which 27 Tibet support
groups raised their concerns over the procedures of the 2016 elections, went viral. They
brought up several issues, including the Election Commission (EC) turning a blind eye on
the complaint ‘alleging that an incumbent candidate is violating the Election
Commission’s prohibition on using official platforms for campaign purposes’.

In an interview with Voice of Tibet on October 17(i), Sonam Choephel Shosur, the Chief
Election Commissioner (CEC) stated that the Election Commission (EC) would only
investigate such cases if evidence was provided to them. Moreover, the EC responded
that they could not observe all non-compliance, which, like the open letter said, ‘raises
the troubling possibility of selective enforcement’.

Another topic was the provision of space for arbitrary interpretation through vague
rules. When reading the electoral rules and regulations, it immediately stands out that
the articles can be interpreted in several ways.
Rules on campaign expenditure

Article 25 (9a) in the electoral rules and regulations states ‘The maximum expenditure
allowance for each Sikyong candidate is eight lakh Indian rupees (Rs. 800,000), whereas
the maximum expenditure allowance for each MP candidate is three lakhs Indian rupees
(300,000)’.[i]Although the compliance of it is nearly impossible, considering the fact that
Sikyong candidates have to travel all around the world for their campaign within that
budget, these limits are a good attempt for fairness and transparency.

However, certain organizations that want to financially support a candidate are free
from these restrictions. The Asia Democracy Network (ADN), the Asian Forum for
Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), and the Asian Network for Free
Elections (ANFREL) have served as watchdogs in the recently concluded preliminary
elections. In their review of the preliminaries, they raised a legitimate concern stating:
“In this case, the exemption of certain recognized groups from these spending limits
damaged the credibility of the campaign finance rules and unnecessarily tilted the
campaign playing field towards those candidates with backing from the outside
recognized groups.” The same issue was raised in the above-mentioned open letter.
Their accusations are extremely severe: constraint of the right to free speech and
inconsistency of human rights. On October 27, the EC published a clarification [ii] simply
saying that ‘These directives of the Election Commission, do not in any way, infringe on
the right to free speech, association and campaign rights of any candidate, nor do they
contravene any international human rights laws’ and that they do not possess any
authority to approve these particular organizations. They stated that the decision to
recognize a group lies in the hands of the Kashag (Tibetan Cabinet). What makes this
selection questionable is the secrecy of the criteria, which the organizations have to
meet.

With the additional rule, the campaign expenditure limits serve no purpose anymore.
Either, the extra rule has to be abolished to provide level playing field for all candidates
or the disclosure of the criteria must be provided so that there is transparency and the
Kashag’s decision is comprehensible.

In an interview with Tibet Express [iii], the CEC asserted that ‘the directive for campaign
expenses was passed to raise awareness among the Tibetan people about the
importance of transparency of campaign expenses during elections’. What the EC
apparently is not aware of, is the importance of the implementation of all necessary
measures in order to provide equal opportunities and the best possible transparency.

New 20% regulation in the Sikyong election

On October 19, the EC issued a circular number of candidates to be shortlisted for the
final round of the Tibetan elections. Article 67 of the electoral rules and
regulations [iv] says that the EC will not shortlist less than two Sikyong candidates for
the final election. In the circular, the EC added: “However, if the vote margin between
the second and third candidate is less than 20% in the preliminary election, three
candidates shall be shortlisted for the final Sikyong election.” This incomprehensible
new rule was not a real surprise given the fact that the EC kept quiet about the number
of Sikyong candidates in the final round for a long time.

As part of the Europe tour, the CEC held a public talk in Switzerland on October 3 which
I attended. The main goal of this tour was to raise awareness about the elections and
their procedure. During the Q&A session [v], one of the attendees inquired whether the
number of candidates for the final Sikyong round would be announced before or after
the preliminaries and if it’s announced after the preliminary election, why that would be
so. Sonam Choephel Shosur, as I predicted, had no straight forward answer to these
questions. He explained that there would be six Sikyong candidates for the preliminary
elections but he did not mention a single word about the number of Sikyong candidates
to be shortlisted for the final round. Instead, in a bid to circumvent the specific question
regarding the Sikyong candidates, he said ‘if there were ten Chitue seats, there would be
20 Chitue candidates for the final round. At that point I knew that issues like
transparency and honesty did not matter much to the EC. I felt that, even as the first
round of elections was nearing, they were still trying to fool us.

What makes one question this new 20% regulation even more is the fact that in the last
elections, this rule did not exist. Tashi Wangdi, the third candidate in the previous
election, was allowed to contest in the final round although the vote margin between
him and Tenzin Namgyal Tethong, who stood second, exceeded 20%. In the interview
with Tibet Express mentioned above, the EC explained that this rule is to ensure that the
third candidate would be included if he fulfilled the given condition ‘because we found it
important as it reflects people’s choice’.

What they probably did not think of is the fact that, like me, many people are now left
with basically no choice for the final round because neither of the two candidates, who
are likely to advance to the next round, Lobsang Sangay and Penpa Tsering, represent
their opinion. Without Lukar Jam, who is likely to secure the third place in the
preliminaries, the diversity of the ideology of the Tibetan people is not expressed.
Furthermore, the most suspicious thing is the timing of the announcement. In an
interview with Phayul [vi], Sonam Choephel Shosur said: “The declaration of the number
of candidates to be shortlisted for the final election was made before the results of
preliminary is announced to avoid any criticism against the EC for being biased.” If this
corresponds to the truth, there is no legitimate reason left for the timing of the
announcement, which was made after the first results of the preliminaries appeared
online.

Although it is hard to say that this was deliberate, it is not difficult to believe that the
purpose of the 20% rule is to exclude Sikyong candidate Lukar Jam from the race. Tenzin
Nyinjey, Senior Researcher at the Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy
(TCHRD) [vii] says : “Because, without him and his arguments for independence, there
shall be no serious debate in the finals, since both likely candidates – LobsangSangay
and PenpaTsering- are middle pathists.”

As a Tibetan, I have utmost pride in the establishment and existence of our government
and democracy although our country is occupied by China. I am endlessly grateful to be
able to vote and appreciate the Central Tibetan Administration and EC for providing us
this right. I do realize that it takes time to develop our system of governance though I am
skeptical about EC’s use of ‘we are an exiled community’ as an excuse to justify every
dubious incidents. Tibetans living in exile circumstances is no reason to accept arbitrary
decisions and live with the belief that we cannot amend our system. Precisely because
we are an exiled community, we have to strive for the best democracy possible and send
a strong message to China that, unlike them, we have a functional democracy in exile. All
it takes for Tibetan green book holders is to make use of our rights and question
unnecessary arbitrariness in our electoral system and governance in order to achieve a
more liberal and transparent democracy.

--* Tashi Shitsetsang is 19 years old and was resident of Switzerland. The member of the Tibetan Youth Association in Europe (TYAE)